Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[RKMBrown]

$10,000 per year income places one in the bottom 6% of US earners in my geographical area. Why don't you tell me why people that poor don't deserve a massive raise regardless of the labor they perform especially since the richest 1% of US households increased their income by about 275% between 1979 and 2007?

Because in order to only make 10k per year one would have to be a part time minimum wage worker. For example, a kid in high school working part time at minimum wage. Part time minimum wage workers, such as kids in high school bagging groceries don't necessarily deserve massive raises. In my experience, everyone that deserves a massive raise gets one or leaves to go to a job that pays more in a very very short amount of time.

Minimum wage income at 40hrs is 14k. You want a 40% raise from 10k? How about working more hours. Oh and take a look at minimum wage increases from 79 to 2014. It went up a helluva lot more than 275%... So what happened? Easy: Welfare is paying people to work part time minimum wage jobs. If they work more than 30hrs at minimum wage they loose their welfare checks. So they work the minimum and stop. You raise minimum wage without raising maximum limits on welfare and they will just work less hours...

"People at or below the federal minimum are:

Disproportionately young: 50.6% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
Mostly (78%) white; fully half are white women.
Largely part-time workers (64% of the total)"

According the Pew Research minimum wage increases between 1979-2012 in adjusted 2012 dollars are non-existent

FWIW, my personal experience with minimum wage job is that 40 hours working at one in the mid-70s resulted in enough monthly income to pay rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy.

I haven't been able to afford a one bedroom of any age or a car since 1993, and my income has always hovered around the California minimum with infrequent resort to welfare.

Who makes minimum wage? | Pew Research Center

When I started working in 1977 minimum wage was 2.30. Today minimum wage is 7.25. The discussion is about the rich getting richer with the argued reason being minimum wage is to low. Yet, minimum wage has kept up with inflation thus spitting in the face of the argument.

As for your ability to live on minimum wage in California.. move to somewhere else. California is one of the most expensive states to live in. Libtardian taxes, welfare, and the dot com boom really busted minimum wage living there.

But hey if you "californians" want $20min wage in cali go for it. Not my state.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capitalism has manufactured the largest private fortunes in history which seems to contradict your allegation that it's the most effective way to prevent concentration of wealth.

Haven't we been discussing the likelihood that amassing such extreme private fortunes isn't possible without government intervention?



We can seek to minimize it, rather than aggressively indulge it. In any case, have you ever heard of Bitcoin? The days of government control over money may be drawing to a close.



Free market capitalism is the ultimate expression of democratic values, with each person having their say with every dollar they earn and spend. Mussolini and the Chinese employed corporatist government to achieve their ends, not free markets.

We seem to have an equivocation problem here, as you and others seem to view the collusion between large financial interests and government as 'capitalism', whereas I see it as the opposite. Can we clarify that somehow?

I despise the way parasites like Soros or Koch use their private fortunes obtained through capitalism to negate the democratic principles that should determine how government functions.

Why don't you?

Can't speak for others here, but I do. I don't have a problem with wealthy people lobbying for policies that favor their interests, but I despise a government that caters to them. That's exactly why constitutional limits on government's ability to do that are so important. Ironically, and unfortunately, reformers all-too-often see those limits as negating democratic principles - when if fact they're defending them.

The equivocation problem you mention could be one of the major reasons why we can't find common ground on curbing the power that private wealth exerts on the federal government today.

Large corporations are the principal conduit for the collusion between large private financial interests and what is supposedly a Democratic Republican form of government in the US.

How is it possible to restrict the influence of corporations, some of which have annual revenues higher than the GDP of small countries, on private individuals, by minimizing the power of government? IMHO, we need to increase democratic constraints on corporations and the 0.1% of the population they empower. De Blasio's recent election on Wall Street's home field is a good example of how elections could turn out if every serious candidate had the same amount of money to spend on their campaigns, for example.

Finally, "free" markets if such exist may provide consumers an opportunity to vote with their dollars, but the workers in capitalistic enterprises have little or no democratic say over how their labor will be compensated or distributed over time. We spend the majority of our adult waking hours working, and yet we're told our democracy ends at the work place door.

Are Corporations People?

Are Unions People?

 

[georgephillip]

Because in order to only make 10k per year one would have to be a part time minimum wage worker. For example, a kid in high school working part time at minimum wage. Part time minimum wage workers, such as kids in high school bagging groceries don't necessarily deserve massive raises. In my experience, everyone that deserves a massive raise gets one or leaves to go to a job that pays more in a very very short amount of time.

Minimum wage income at 40hrs is 14k. You want a 40% raise from 10k? How about working more hours. Oh and take a look at minimum wage increases from 79 to 2014. It went up a helluva lot more than 275%... So what happened? Easy: Welfare is paying people to work part time minimum wage jobs. If they work more than 30hrs at minimum wage they loose their welfare checks. So they work the minimum and stop. You raise minimum wage without raising maximum limits on welfare and they will just work less hours...

"People at or below the federal minimum are:

Disproportionately young: 50.6% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
Mostly (78%) white; fully half are white women.
Largely part-time workers (64% of the total)"

According the Pew Research minimum wage increases between 1979-2012 in adjusted 2012 dollars are non-existent

FWIW, my personal experience with minimum wage job is that 40 hours working at one in the mid-70s resulted in enough monthly income to pay rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy.

I haven't been able to afford a one bedroom of any age or a car since 1993, and my income has always hovered around the California minimum with infrequent resort to welfare.

Who makes minimum wage? | Pew Research Center

When I started working in 1977 minimum wage was 2.30. Today minimum wage is 7.25. The discussion is about the rich getting richer with the argued reason being minimum wage is to low. Yet, minimum wage has kept up with inflation thus spitting in the face of the argument.

As for your ability to live on minimum wage in California.. move to somewhere else. California is one of the most expensive states to live in. Libtardian taxes, welfare, and the dot com boom really busted minimum wage living there.

But hey if you "californians" want $20min wage in cali go for it. Not my state.

Your figures showing how the minimum wage has kept up with inflation appear to be based on unadjusted 2012 dollars.

If you compare your numbers to those that have been adjusted for the inflation that's occurred between 1979 to 2012, the minimum wage was actually higher in 1980 than where it was in 2012.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.

HTH

BS. It's the same damn thing. How is government mandating pay rates, and benefits for employees not taking ownership of the owner's property? How is the owner supposed to keep his property when the government is mandating he divided it among his employees in the form of higher salaries?

Oh.. you must be one of those folks that think taxes on Income isn't slavery too.

No they are like completely different. If the difference is lost on you imagine owning a business where the min wage changes and you have to pay employees more. Now imagine owning a business and having government tell you that they own it now.

Understand the difference?

"Imagine owning a business. "

I did that. When I was 6.

I grew up working in the family business, from 6 years old I went to work every day, 6 and more often than not 7 days a week.

That business started with a loan my Dad took from a family friend. He used the money to rent a store front and advertise his wares and the services he provided.

That was it. He in effect 'hung out his shingle' and from there people came in and exchanged the value they had, in the form of money, or other goods and services they possessed which Dad would exchange, to the mutual profit of both parties.

Worked like a charm.

He just went to work. No licenses required. He bought insurance to offset unforeseen liabilities. When business became such that he could no longer do it all with his hands and those of the family, he put an ad in the paper, checked around with trade schools and set to bargaining with those folks, telling them what he had going and asking those who responded to his inquires, what they could bring to the table.

The deal was, you tend to the tasks I set before you, which will be intrinsic to your skills and aptitude, and he would give them X in exchange.

The benefit being that they all earned a nice living.

I started my own in business in my 30s. I found people that were in need of my knowledge and skills and I traded them the benefit of my knowledge and skills for the value they possessed. I used the money I made to pay my bills and buy equipment that provided me to demand higher values. Which came along with no more required to start a business than the desire to do so, the skills and ethic determination to perform as promised.

Today, to do what I do, would require a capital investment of a hundred thousand dollars before you could ever begin to present yourself as a business. Assuming one followed "The LAW".

To sustain an employee making $40hr, requires one be healed sufficiently to pay 70/hr.

Monthly bureaucratic fees are thousands of dollars, each and every month. And this before a nickle is paid on utilities, mortgage payments, operate and service a single vehicle, phones, and on and on and on or buy one widget in inventory.

Now the absolute MINIMUM that is required to BREAK EVEN, is to charge CONFISCATORY RATES. Want to earn a profit? Rates gotta go up.

Now that is the case with every business you can think of.

Retailers, wholesalers, consultants, skateboard park, Medical Pot Outlet, neighborhood convenience store, bar, barber, nail salon and so on.

Rates and Prices go up as your means to stay afloat goes DOWN! The price of food, the price of gas, the price to buy ANYTHING and EVERYTHING GOES UP when you increase the cost of LABOR. And who is responsible?

YOU ARE!​

 

[TemplarKormac]

Capitalism, beotch!

This is What the Spread of Walmart Looks Like From 1962 to 2006:

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Capitalism, beotch!

This is What the Spread of Walmart Looks Like From 1962 to 2006:

What's your point?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Capitalism, beotch!

This is What the Spread of Walmart Looks Like From 1962 to 2006:

What's your point?

You're looking at it.

 

[SwimExpert]

Capitalism, beotch!

This is What the Spread of Walmart Looks Like From 1962 to 2006:

When you put it that way, I almost want to become socialist.

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalism, beotch!

This is What the Spread of Walmart Looks Like From 1962 to 2006:

When you put it that way, I almost want to become socialist.

You already are one.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Capitalism, beotch!

This is What the Spread of Walmart Looks Like From 1962 to 2006:

When you put it that way, I almost want to become socialist.

Go right ahead.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Under Reagan, the degree of income inequality got dramatically reduced.

Under Obumbler, the divergence has increased.

If we are worried about income inequality, we should (like the Reagan Administration accomplished) FOSTER capitalism,

The thread title is not just bass ackwards, it's deliberately dishonest.

What a non surprise.

 

[Indeependent]

Under Reagan, the degree of income inequality got dramatically reduced.

Under Obumbler, the divergence has increased.

If we are worried about income inequality, we should (like the Reagan Administration accomplished) FOSTER capitalism,

The thread title is not just bass ackwards, it's deliberately dishonest.

What a non surprise.

Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
Then you get older and you get bone cancer.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Under Reagan, the degree of income inequality got dramatically reduced.

Under Obumbler, the divergence has increased.

If we are worried about income inequality, we should (like the Reagan Administration accomplished) FOSTER capitalism,

The thread title is not just bass ackwards, it's deliberately dishonest.

What a non surprise.

Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
Then you get older and you get bone cancer.

One must sit back and admire such incoherence.

I've noted your style.

It's familiar to me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Under Reagan, the degree of income inequality got dramatically reduced.

Under Obumbler, the divergence has increased.

If we are worried about income inequality, we should (like the Reagan Administration accomplished) FOSTER capitalism,

The thread title is not just bass ackwards, it's deliberately dishonest.

What a non surprise.

Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
Then you get older and you get bone cancer.

8 years of Obama is more like ass cancer.

 

[SwimExpert]

Capitalism, beotch!

This is What the Spread of Walmart Looks Like From 1962 to 2006:

When you put it that way, I almost want to become socialist.

You already are one.

You're an idiot.

 

[Indeependent]

Under Reagan, the degree of income inequality got dramatically reduced.

Under Obumbler, the divergence has increased.

If we are worried about income inequality, we should (like the Reagan Administration accomplished) FOSTER capitalism,

The thread title is not just bass ackwards, it's deliberately dishonest.

What a non surprise.

Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
Then you get older and you get bone cancer.

One must sit back and admire such incoherence.

I've noted your style.

It's familiar to me.

At least I have style; all you have is your Limbaugh bull crap.

 

[Indeependent]

Under Reagan, the degree of income inequality got dramatically reduced.

Under Obumbler, the divergence has increased.

If we are worried about income inequality, we should (like the Reagan Administration accomplished) FOSTER capitalism,

The thread title is not just bass ackwards, it's deliberately dishonest.

What a non surprise.

Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
Then you get older and you get bone cancer.

8 years of Obama is more like ass cancer.

As if any other politician isn't going to screw over half the country.

 

[dblack]

Capitalism has manufactured the largest private fortunes in history which seems to contradict your allegation that it's the most effective way to prevent concentration of wealth.

Haven't we been discussing the likelihood that amassing such extreme private fortunes isn't possible without government intervention?



We can seek to minimize it, rather than aggressively indulge it. In any case, have you ever heard of Bitcoin? The days of government control over money may be drawing to a close.



Free market capitalism is the ultimate expression of democratic values, with each person having their say with every dollar they earn and spend. Mussolini and the Chinese employed corporatist government to achieve their ends, not free markets.

We seem to have an equivocation problem here, as you and others seem to view the collusion between large financial interests and government as 'capitalism', whereas I see it as the opposite. Can we clarify that somehow?

I despise the way parasites like Soros or Koch use their private fortunes obtained through capitalism to negate the democratic principles that should determine how government functions.

Why don't you?

Can't speak for others here, but I do. I don't have a problem with wealthy people lobbying for policies that favor their interests, but I despise a government that caters to them. That's exactly why constitutional limits on government's ability to do that are so important. Ironically, and unfortunately, reformers all-too-often see those limits as negating democratic principles - when if fact they're defending them.

The equivocation problem you mention could be one of the major reasons why we can't find common ground on curbing the power that private wealth exerts on the federal government today.

Large corporations are the principal conduit for the collusion between large private financial interests and what is supposedly a Democratic Republican form of government in the US.

How is it possible to restrict the influence of corporations, some of which have annual revenues higher than the GDP of small countries, on private individuals, by minimizing the power of government? IMHO, we need to increase democratic constraints on corporations and the 0.1% of the population they empower. De Blasio's recent election on Wall Street's home field is a good example of how elections could turn out if every serious candidate had the same amount of money to spend on their campaigns, for example.

I don't think we should restrict the influence of corporations. We shouldn't restrict the power of any organizations to influence government. The influence of corporations isn't the problem. It's what they're able to buy with that influence.

Collusion between government and business begins when we grant the state the power to intervene in our economic activities for reasons other than matters of criminal justice. And it won't end until we revoke that power.

Finally, "free" markets if such exist may provide consumers an opportunity to vote with their dollars, but the workers in capitalistic enterprises have little or no democratic say over how their labor will be compensated or distributed over time. We spend the majority of our adult waking hours working, and yet we're told our democracy ends at the work place door.

The difference between economic power and political power, apart from the lack of coercion in the former, is that economic power is expressed by money - one "vote" per dollar, rather than one vote per person. So, yes, individual workers have less say in economic decisions than wealthy investors. That's really the whole point of capitalism.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Capitalism, beotch!

This is What the Spread of Walmart Looks Like From 1962 to 2006:

What's your point?

You're looking at it.

So you're point is that Walmart found a vital key to fundamental needs of the culture, capitalized on it and rode that to unprecedented levels of success?

Or that you enjoy nifty .gifs?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Under Reagan, the degree of income inequality got dramatically reduced.

Under Obumbler, the divergence has increased.

If we are worried about income inequality, we should (like the Reagan Administration accomplished) FOSTER capitalism,

The thread title is not just bass ackwards, it's deliberately dishonest.

What a non surprise.

Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
Then you get older and you get bone cancer.

Oh, now that's cute.

Please explain, in as much detail as your intellectually able to produce, the specifics of the economic cancer, in terms of specific instances of cause and effect, produced by sound economic principle, wherein the individual is freed to exchange goods and services to the profit of all engaged in the exchange.

(Dear Reader: The contributor will provide no specifics, because they have no knowledge of such. I only provided the challenge, as a means to berate and belittle them due to their obvious desperate need of some heretofore unknown humility. But how cool is it that EVERY individual ya meet who claims to be an 'independent' is a FULL BLOWN COLLECTIVIST? You gotta LOVE 'EM for their consistency.)